451 CAOS Theory 
A blog for the enterprise open source community
Could investor short-termism undermine open source?
Matthew Aslett, May 13, 2008 @ 8:47 am ETWhen we write about investors on this blog we are normally referring to angel and VC investors and the funding they provide to open source start-ups. There is a small, but growing, list of VCs that clearly understand the open source development and distribution models and the long-term profit potential of open source software vendors.
Can the same be said of individual and institutional investors buying and selling shares in publicly traded software companies? Not according to the analysis of Oliver Alexy, a research assistant and doctoral candidate at the Technische Universität München TUM Business School in Munich, Germany.
Oliver has analyzed the impact that releasing software under open source licenses has on a company’s share price. Details have been published this week in the Wall Street Journal and suggest that there may well be a positive reaction to open source moves from shareholders, but only if they see an opportunity for short-term gain.
“Companies saw their stock price rise if they met one crucial condition: explaining how they expected their open strategy to bring in short-term revenue. Companies that clearly communicated a short-term revenue model saw an average stock-price increase of 1.6%. Companies that didn’t saw an average decline of 1.6%,” he writes.
As Matt Asay points out, “this betrays a woefully naive view of open source by the market.” It could also be damaging to open source software in the long-term.
Take Sun’s open source conversion as an example. It is a long-term bet that by making its software freely available, Sun increases the chances of it being adopted. While there are some users that will never pay for support, Sun is casting a wider net in an attempt to seed adoption of its commercial server, storage and software support services and/or block adoption of rival technologies.
It will take some time for this strategy to play out, and in the meantime the company has to deal with the impact of issues such as under-performing legacy products and regional slowdowns. Any investors expecting the $1bn spent on MySQL to quickly, or even partially, make up for a 10% YoY decline in US revenue is likely to be disappointed.
This is not to criticize either Sun’s overall strategy of the acquisition of MySQL. In many ways it does not matter whether Sun’s strategy is sound or not, however. What matters is whether Sun’s investors have the patience to wait for long-term returns. If Oliver Alexy’s analysis is correct, they will be the exceptions rather than the rule if they do.
See also Oliver Alexy’s paper, “Putting a value on openness: the effect of product source code releases on the market value of firms”. (PDF)
Categories: Funding
Comments RSS feed | Trackback URI




[...] Paul Fremantle wrote an interesting post today onHere’s a quick excerptWhen we write about investors on this blog we are normally referring to angel and VC investors and the funding they provide to open source start-ups. There is a small, but growing, list of VCs that clearly understand the open source … [...]
Matthew,
Mr. Alexy’s paper probably should be titled “Newly announced open source licensing terms and conditions have same effect on share price as any other new product announcement.”
For starters, this 1.6% change he found sounds pretty negligible (IBM moved from $100 to $101.6?). More important it is probably no different a share price movement than that for any company in any industry (not just software sold without open source terms and conditions). The key ingredient in his plus/minus analysis is the promise by the companies “of an explicit revenue model” short term, not the license terms and conditions. I bet he would get the same results comparing public soap, TV, or razor blade companies that offer a short term revenue hit from a new product vs. those that don’t.
His control group could have been what happened to the share prices of software companies that do not use open source terms and conditions after they announced new products and said there would be short-term revenue gain from the product. But that would be a hard group to find because most of the leading publicly traded software companies already offer products with open source terms and conditions.
Among institutional investors, open source terms and conditions are not a big differentiator (they love the development model though because it has held down R&D expense for commodity functionality). They are punishing Sun becasue is not thought of as a software company (rightfully) and yet it says it is going to take on the third largest software company, Oracle, directly.
As you say, that’s not a short term revenue play.
Thanks for the insight Dennis - good point regarding the need for a control group.